Comcast interfering with file sharing and P2P traffic...

[ahofle]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/27/comcast.bittorrent/index.html

This is also why internet-distributed movies will never replace physical media IMO...

"Time Warner Cable is experimenting with another way of managing traffic, placing explicit caps on the monthly downloads for new customers in Beaumont, Texas. Subscribers who go over their allotment will pay extra, much like a cell-phone subscriber who uses too many minutes in a month."

There simply isn't enough bandwidth to go around and everyone wants everything to be distributed over the internet.  I'm sure it's just a matter of time before there will be bandwidth caps for all providers.  I know I'm not going to waste my limited bandwidth on downloading crappy HD movies.

[ChadTower]

Hasn't it always been like that in Europe?  I know it was in the dialup days.

[RetroACTIVE]

There simply isn't enough bandwidth to go around and everyone wants everything to be distributed over the internet.  I'm sure it's just a matter of time before there will be bandwidth caps for all providers.  I know I'm not going to waste my limited bandwidth on downloading crappy HD movies.

Beyond Comcast's entry point... there is p-l-e-n-t-y of bandwidth... there has been a glut of bandwidth since the explosion of late 90's into 2001 (pre internet bubble burst)... the problem is the limitation of cable (coax) networks.... not the backbone.

[Cakemeister]

[H] says they are removing the bandwidth restriction for P2P, but not until the end of the year.

[ark_ader]

Hasn't it always been like that in Europe?  I know it was in the dialup days.

When I worked with an UK ISP tech support, last year we had caps on at 6pm until 1am Monday - Friday and then Saturday and Sunday was cap free.   If you downloaded over a specific period of time, I (we) would cap you down from 8MB to 256K.  We got around this by using wording like: "up to" and "depending on your geographic area" also "unlimited" was used generally.

If you didn't go over the 20gb monthly baseline you were ok.  It was the P2P users we were targetting, not the patch upgrade users who can pull that 20gb quite easily.

You will see loads of comments like this on: http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=aol  its not funny or intended to be abusive of rights, but UK users (based on data collected at the time) were using P2P site quite heavily.

I can see the same trends happening over in the States.  I have a couple of friends that work for a major ISP and they see the same issues.  Soon ISPs will charge data like the electricity companies or we will see utility companies merging like they do in the UK.  If I had to start paying extra for service it would be for fibre optic and 100mb!.

Games like WOW which can tag a update or patch that can run over 600mb might have to distribute CDs instead (like in the old Compuserve or AOL days) or have a flash drive station where you go to a store and download your patch/driver etc.

One way it will reduce the piracy issue going on with P2P, and create some more controls for user subscribed content.  Traffic shaping will be more accurate.  I see the government taking an active role in creating legislation for internet access control.

Unfortunately us tech support guys will have to buy more asprin, when the  hits the fan, and all you download junkies start losing bandwidth, and start complaining. 

I guess we can still blame it on your telephone/cable line, PC or your virus/spyware.   

[Grasshopper]

Piracy is a complete red herring in this context. The real issue here is that ISPs are being blatantly dishonest in claiming to offer a service that they’re not actually providing. It’s a disgrace.

If the bandwidth is simply not available then so be it. But if that’s the case then ISPs should be completely upfront about it, and adjust their prices accordingly.

If an ISP uses clear cut terms such as “unlimited” in its advertising then consumers have a right to expect the ISP to provide precisely that.